Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

January 11, 2010

Jan 11, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 1:10 pm

Jan 11, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

This is the first regular meeting of the 2010-11 City Council term, and the new Council begins with a relatively clean slate as the much of the detritus of Councils past has been allowed to expire. The first order of (unfinished) business is the election of a mayor. The first attempt on January 4 resulted in a highly fractured vote, but it is expected that votes will shift on the second ballot and any subsequent ballots. Multiple factors are at play including (a) the news from the grapevine that Marjorie Decker will be having a State Senate campaign event in Saugus on January 31 – an apparent sign that she intends to pursue the Galluccio seat; (b) the commitments for the first mayoral ballot have now been expended; (c) feedback from political supporters in the wake of the January 4 ballot may cause a councillor or two to think twice about the political fallout; and (d) nobody really wants this to go on very long with the resultant delay in Council business caused by the lack of any appointments to City Council subcommittees by the new mayor. Most of the speculation centers on either Henrietta Davis or David Maher being best positioned to pick up the necessary 5th vote, but the continued meetings and wheeling and dealing and political hardball yields no certainty in the outcome.

As far as the rest of the meeting agenda goes, here are a few items of interest:

RECONSIDERATION. Councillor Kelley filed Reconsideration on the vote taken on Dec 21, 2009 confirming the appointments transmitted on a communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as Commissioners of the Cambridge Housing Authority: Anthony Pini (term expires 4/1/2014) and Gerald Clark (term expires 1/11/2015) [Dec 21, 2009 motion of Councillor Kelley to Table failed 4-5-0. Appointments confirmed 8-1-0. Councillor Kelley filed Reconsideration.]

Though I don’t pretend to understand all the intense passion expressed about these appointments and the behind-the-scenes push to change the vote late in the December 21 meeting to approve these appointments, it is worth noting that this is precisely the reason why state law and Robert’s Rules of Order allow for reconsideration of votes. Many outspoken public housing advocates had gone home on December 21 after this matter had been tabled and were shocked to learn that this changed late in the meeting. Expect some spirited public comment on this matter regardless how the final vote goes.

Order # 1. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate City department heads and personnel in order to determine alternatives to laying off the five employees from the Lead Safe Cambridge program.   Councillor Simmons

This Order is noteworthy primarily in that it seems to direct the City Manager what to do in a personnel matter. It would be one thing if the Order focused on the importance of preserving the Lead-Safe program, but this Order instead is all about retaining five employees. Presumably, all of these employees have the opportunity to respond to any internal or public postings for City jobs. The City Council Order seems to say that the Manager should retain these employees in their current jobs regardless of need or budgetary concerns. Does this not seem like micromanagement from a city councillor?

Order #4. City Council concerns regarding House Bill 4410 which would give new powers to state and local school officials to turn around under-performing schools and increase the number of charter schools.   Councillor Davis and Councillor Maher

The sponsors of the Order seem to agree with the Legislature on (1) reducing the financial impact of charter schools on regular public schools; (2) better processes for evaluating and approving charter schools; and (3) amendments that would help turn around underperforming schools. However, the sponsors express opposition to amendments that would (1) weaken proposed management powers or enhance the ability of unions to block action by school districts; (b) require municipalities and school districts to sell or lease surplus school facilities to charter schools; (3) new spending mandates on cities, towns and school districts; and (4) lifting the cap on charter schools. Councillor and State Representative Toomey may have something to say in response to this Order. H4410 passed by a 119-35 vote. The Senate approved a different version and a 6-member House-Senate conference committee is now working on a compromise of the two versions.
According to my reading of the City Council materials, the only holdover items from the previous Council are these:
(1) Council Kelley’s Reconsideration of the Cambridge Housing Authority appointments.
(2) The Fanning Petition to rezone an area in East Cambridge.
(3) A December Order regarding increasing the amount of public information about elections while the municipal election is in progress.
(4) A December Order and a committee report regarding the City Council’s policy on naming street corners.
(5) A request to the City Manager for information regarding what barriers would prevent residents from raising chickens and what could be done to remove these barriers.

Also in the pipeline – a scattered set of recommendations from December’s “Climate Congress” which will have a follow-up City Hall meeting on January 23. Unlike an actual legislative process where most proposals require majority support, the current draft of these citizen recommendations reads like a laundry list of every imaginable idea in environmental regulation and social engineering. Many of the ideas presented will be dead on arrival such as the proposal to increase the cost of a residential parking sticker every year for the next 20 years – even though most participants seemed to agree that the local impact of automobiles on climate was far less than things like poorly insulated and inefficient commercial, residential, and institutional buildings. A strong theme at this gathering was the need to better quantify the primary contributors to climate change before setting priorities or determining policies and initiatives. Nonetheless, the draft recommendations are dominated by proposals made without any such prioritization. It’s worth looking at for a few good ideas, but this document leaves a lot to be desired as either a legislative agenda or a blueprint for change. – Robert Winters

January 7, 2010

Follow the Money

Filed under: 2009 Election,campaign finance,City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 9:07 am

Jan 6 – Follow The Money – What percentage of the 2009 campaign contributions for each of the elected city councillors came from people with a Cambridge address? Here are the percentages:

Henrietta Davis – 90%    
Craig Kelley – 88%
Leland Cheung – 74%		 Sam Seidel – 56%
David Maher – 54%
Denise Simmons – 51%    		 Tim Toomey – 45%
Ken Reeves – 28%
Marjorie Decker – 24%
Information based on data from the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF)

Addendum: The OCPF data reveals some other interesting things such as which candidates received campaign donations in excess of the individual annual limit of $500. Here are the apparent excesses:

Candidate Donor Annual Amount
Marjorie Decker Asbestos Workers Local 6 $750
Marjorie Decker Carpenters Local Union No. 33 $800
Marjorie Decker Anne DiGiovanni $1000
Marjorie Decker John DiGiovanni $1000
Marjorie Decker IUPAT District Council #35 $1250
Marjorie Decker New England Regional Council of Carpenters $1000
Marjorie Decker Sheet Metal Workers Local #17 $2750
David Maher National Association of Government Employees $750
Kenneth E. Reeves     Muirann Glenmullen $750
Kenneth E. Reeves Kelly Higgins $1000
Kenneth E. Reeves Joyce Naggar $1000
Kenneth E. Reeves Stuart Rothman $600
Kenneth E. Reeves Fred Swanson $600
Kenneth E. Reeves John Toulopoulos $600
Sam Seidel Phyllis Seidel $1000

Perhaps a refund or two may be in order, or maybe there’s some explanation for some of these. Here’s the data (zipped Excel file) for anyone who wants to go fishing: 2009contributions.zip. Corrections, explanations, or interesting discoveries are enthusiastically welcome. There may still be a few more 2009 donations to be recorded, but it’s all courtesy of the OCPF. — Robert Winters

January 3, 2010

On the Eve of the City Council Inauguration and Mayoral Vote

Filed under: 2009 Election,Cambridge government,City Council — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 6:51 pm

On the Eve of the City Council Inauguration and Mayoral Vote

On Monday, January 4, 2010 at 10:00am the newly elected Cambridge City Council will be sworn in at City Hall. Once City Clerk Margaret Drury takes care of all the swearing-in, the new Council will take up their first order of business – the election of a Mayor. If a majority is able to elect a Mayor, they will then proceed to the election of the Vice-Chair of the City Council (commonly known as Vice-Mayor).

The elected councillors have been meeting in pairs and threesomes and foursomes ever since the election results were known in November as the various mayoral contenders have been trying to convince and bargain their way into the Mayor’s Office. Much of the convincing is based on things like philosophy, committee appointments, and who might be well-suited to chair the School Committee. On the other hand, there is a history of some not-so-above-board deal-making that also takes place in this process, e.g. the introduction of personal aides for all city councillors that grew out of the January 2006 deal-making.

As most voting Cantabrigians know, the Mayor of Cambridge is not popularly elected. It’s really more like the election of a City Council President as in Boston and many other places. There is a certain logic in allowing an elected body to choose its own Chair, especially in a city governed by the Plan E Charter in which the City Council chooses a city manager as chief executive officer of the City. However, there is also a point of view that city councillors should act as representatives of the electorate and that they have some duty to act on behalf of those who elected them. If this is the case, what criteria should guide the election?

Criterion #1 – Showing Up for Work

Based on who has attended City Council committee meetings during the 2008-2009 term, the nod might go to Sam Seidel or Henrietta Davis (see chart at http://rwinters.com), though a strong case could be made for David Maher who chaired more meetings than any of his colleagues. Of course, outgoing Mayor Denise Simmons would also have to be included among the contenders for all the City Council and School Committee meetings she chaired during her term.

Criterion #2 – Let the People Decide – Instant Runoff

We could use the ballot data from the November election to see who would be elected if a series of runoffs were to be held using the ballots that elected the city councillors. Based of this, the nod would go to Henrietta Davis (with Denise Simmons as the last eliminated and Tim Toomey before her). However, the notion that voter preferences should factor into the mayoral election exposes a paradox. After the 2005 and 2007 elections, the person elected Mayor was the least preferred by the voters among the nine elected and would have been the first eliminated in an Instant Runoff election. Specifically, in 2005 and 2007 the Instant Runoff winner was Henrietta Davis, but Kenneth E. Reeves was chosen in January 2006 and Denise Simmons in January 2008 as Mayor. The likely reason for this reversal of fortune is that Council colleagues often do not wish to strengthen the hand of a popular colleague. If the pattern of 2005 and 2007 is repeated this year, we’ll be greeting Mayor Leland Cheung on Monday morning.

I made a chart of these Instant Runoff Simulations for the 2009, 2007, 2005, 2003, 2001, 1999, 1997, and 1991 elections (the ones for which ballot data is available). It’s worth noting that the last times the Instant Runoff winners were actually elected Mayor were in 1997 (Frank Duehay) and 1999 (Anthony Galluccio).

Criterion #3 – Let the People Decide – Look at the Rankings

There are quite a few ways of measuring popularity based on ballot rankings. One rather simplistic approach is to look only at the #1 rankings – a criterion often promoted in years past. The “#1 vote-getter” would make the case that this is what the people demand. Of course, this ignores the phenomenon of vote-splitting – the very thing that preferential ballots are designed to mitigate. Perhaps a more fair way to measure popularity based on ballot rankings would be to count the number of ballots on which each candidate appears with a high ranking, e.g. somewhere in the top 3 or top 5 or top 9 rankings. Henrietta Davis wins according to this criteria in all scenarios except the “Top 3” criterion in which she is eclipsed by 1 vote by Denise Simmons, 5015 to 5014. It’s worth noting that according to these criteria, some elected councillors fare worse than some candidates who were not even elected. For example, using a “Top 3” criterion, Marjorie Decker and Leland Cheung are eclipsed by Eddie Sullivan and Larry Ward. In all criteria using 5 or more rankings, Marjorie Decker actually finishes 12th, though one can certainly argue that this may be a by-product of being a write-in candidate.

Criterion #4 – School Committee Experience

There are four councillors who have been previously elected to the Cambridge School Committee – Tim Toomey, Henrietta Davis, David Maher, and Denise Simmons. Of course, all those who have previously served as Mayor have also served in this capacity.

Criterion #5 – The Rotation Principle

There is something of a tradition of passing the torch among City Council colleagues so that various mayoral styles and priorities can be sampled. Based on this, the nod would go to Tim Toomey and Henrietta Davis for having waited their turn the longest. Needless to say, this criterion is most often quoted in order to dissuade councillors from reelecting a Mayor to a 2nd consecutive term. The Rotation Principle generally goes hand-in-hand with the Exclusion Principle, i.e. the fact that there are some elected councillors whose behavior has been such that they couldn’t get majority support under virtually any circumstance. In short, some measure of acceptability is a prerequisite for consideration under the Rotation Principle. Though there is a temptation to name the Excluded here, I shall resist. In any case, every councillor’s vote weighs as much as any other.

We’ll see what Monday brings. Perhaps a deck of cards or some dice will prove handy in determining the outcome. – Robert Winters

Jan 4, 4:00pm update: The newly inaugurated Cambridge City Council failed to elect Mayor at its opening meeting. Their next opportunity will be at their regular January 11 meeting next Monday. Here’s how the vote went:

Leland Cheung voted for Marjorie Decker
Henrietta Davis voted for Henrietta Davis
Marjorie Decker voted for Marjorie Decker
Craig Kelley voted for Ken Reeves
David Maher voted for David Maher
Ken Reeves voted for Ken Reeves
Sam Seidel voted for David Maher
Denise Simmons voted for Denise Simmons
Tim Toomey voted for David Maher

It takes 5 votes to elect a Mayor, so there’s a way to go. The School Committee will be inaugurated at 6:00pm tonight with Councillor Reeves standing in as Chair in the absence of an elected Mayor. It is not clear whether they will vote to elect their Vice-Chair at this meeting or if they will wait until the election of a Mayor and 7th voting member of the School Committee.

December 21, 2009

Dec 21, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge government,City Council — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 11:20 am

Dec 21, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

This is the last meeting of the 2008-09 City Council term and the last one for Councillor Larry Ward who was not reelected in the November election. As much as I look forward to the arrival of newly-elected Leland Cheung to the City Council, I would have preferred to see someone other than my neighbor and friend Larry Ward vacate the seat to make room for the new guy. Life goes on and Larry will continue to be a bigger-than-life presence in the neighborhood as he has always been. I know that his Council colleagues and the City administration appreciated his time on the City Council.

There are 10 responses by the City Manager to Council requests for information on tonight’s agenda. This leaves only 22 out of 305 such requests from this Council term – not a bad response rate. The remaining requests cover truck traffic, traffic at two major intersections, tenant representation on the Housing Authority Board and stimulus money for CHA projects, the Walden Street cattle pass, hoarding, security cameras, library hours of operation, a Women’s Commission report, smoking in parks and outdoor seating areas, noisy rooftop mechanicals, dark sky zoning amendments, a 311 alert system, middle schools, damaged overhead wires, videos for Mac users, playgroups, Lakeview Avenue construction, rodents, and raising chickens.

One notable item on the City Manager’s Agenda is this:

City Manager’s Agenda #3. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the acceptance of M.G.L. Chapter 32B, Section 20, which will establish an Other Post Employment Liability Trust Fund. This irrevocable trust fund will provide the City a vehicle to make contributions to meet the unfunded liability; and the transfer of $2.0 million from the City’s Health Insurance Claims Trust Fund, which has a balance of $17.7 million to the Other Post Employment Liability Trust Fund. This initial allocation will begin the process of providing future allocations from this and/or other funding sources to the OPEB Trust Fund based on an annual review.

This initiative is part of a long-term change in the way states and cities handle the accounting of these obligations. As reported by the Manager, these recommendations have been in the works since 2007 and “the City has positioned itself to address the OPEB liability in an orderly and planned manner in the future, which has been recognized by the rating agencies as part of its positive credit rating.”

There’s also this procedural Order regarding the forwarding of items not yet acted on to the 2010-2011 City Council.

Order #1. That all items pending before the City Council and not acted upon by the end of the 2009 Legislative Session be placed in the files of the City Clerk without prejudice provided that those proposed ordinances which have been passed to a second reading, advertised and listed under “Unfinished Business” during the 2008-2009 City Council term shall be forwarded to the next City Council and further provided that any items pending in committee may, at the discretion of the committee, be forwarded to the next City Council.   Mayor Simmons

Not that it matters all that much to anyone, but I really wish the City Council would dispose of the following item one way or another:

Unfinished Business #5. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on Nov 18, 2004 for the purpose of considering proposed amendments to Chapter 2.74 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, the Police Review and Advisory Board (PRAB) Ordinance. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Feb 14, 2005. [Four sections of the proposed amendment were passed to be ordained as amended. Ordinance #1284. The remaining proposed amendments to chapter 2.74 remain on Unfinished Business.]

It’s embarrassing to have items over five years old lingering on the agenda week after week and year after year. There is an ongoing review of police and PRAB matters. If the Council cannot resolve this now, they should refer it to the ongoing review and start fresh in the new Council term. Even proposed amendments to ordinances have a shelf life.

Meanwhile, the speculation continues as to who will be chosen as Chair of the City Council and School Committee in two weeks, i.e. the new mayor. It matters little to most residents, but these two higher salary years can make a big difference in the pension of a city councillor. The selection is something of a strategic contradiction – councillors who do well in the November election are often disadvantaged by the fact that their colleagues don’t want to strengthen their hand by giving them the increased visibility of being mayor. Some people get all worked up about this short period of conflict among councillors, but this usually (and hopefully) passes quickly. It is, after all, not really that big a deal. – RW

December 14, 2009

Dec 14, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 12:53 pm

Dec 14, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Tonight’s meeting will be the next to last of the 2008-09 City Council term with one more to go next Monday. It’s notable how the number of Council Orders and Resolutions drops precipitously after Election Day. The City Manager has 7 responses to City Council requests on his agenda (dealing with parking, police details, the Red Line, tree wells, railroad tracks, trash pickup, and scabies), but we are blessed with just 3 new City Council Orders. Fortunately, Councillor Davis submitted the following Order before flying the coop on her way to Copenhagen:

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate departments including the Inspectional Services Department and the City Solicitor to report back to the 2010 City Council in January on what barriers would prevent residents from raising chickens and what could be done to remove these barriers.   Councillor Davis

I have met these chickens and I hope we can provide them legal, affordable housing in Cambridge. This reminds me of the rooster that used to live behind a house on Columbia street diagonally behind the Squirrel Brand Community Garden (before the City sacrificed half the garden to build an underutilized mini-park in the name of community access – but I digress). I don’t know whether the rooster died or was evicted, but it was once a marvelous thing to hear the cock crow while visiting that garden. I’m sure the “new people” moving into the neighborhood did not appreciate that bird as I did.

So, let’s change the ordinances to allow the chickens to come home to roost. Maybe we should get some cows to graze on the Common while we’re at it.

There’s also this:

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Cable Television Department to determine the reason for Comcast to be conducting a poll regarding the City’s Cable Channels and CCTV channels.   Councillor Toomey

I don’t know what the Evil Empire of Comcast is up to with this poll, but I’ll be happy to offer some feedback right here. It was not very nice to take away virtually all of the TV stations for Basic Analog Cable customers other than those that can be picked up off the air. Except for New England Cable News, CCTV, and the municipal stations, everything else recently vanished. Perhaps some stations would return if I got their digital service, but I expect that will require at least another $50 per month for the privilege of getting back some of these commercial-laden stations and it’s hard to justify this. I believe I’d have to pay close to $100 per month to see any Red Sox games. Meanwhile, Comcast is in the process of buying the National Broadcast Company (NBC) from General Electric for perhaps $35 billion. Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we need him to break up the trusts?

My inclination is to say good-bye to Comcast. I hope others in Cambridge feel the same way. Of course, I’m sure the Evil Empire will only try to find other ways to restrict access to television programs unless their trolls are paid handsomely in order to buy up even more media companies. Welcome to The World of More.

Other business on tonight’s agenda includes 6 City Council committee reports as our elected officials scurry to close out the books for this term. There’s also the official word from the Election Commission that the School Committee Recount returned the same winners (after considerable cost even though there was essentially no chance that the results would change). — RW

November 26, 2009

Voter turnout in Cambridge by precinct

Filed under: 2009 Election,City Council — Robert Winters @ 10:40 am

Nov 26 – Voter turnout in Cambridge by precinct in the recent Cambridge City Council election:

Precinct Reg. voters Voted turnout Precinct Reg. voters Voted turnout Precinct Reg. voters Voted turnout
9-1 2160 788 36.5% 3-1 1593 468 29.4% 4-2 2319 536 23.1%
1-2 1686 609 36.1% 4-1 2092 603 28.8% 3-3 1539 336 21.8%
11-3 2403 861 35.8% 8-2 2002 552 27.6% 6-2 2035 428 21.0%
9-2 2346 812 34.6% 2-1 1817 497 27.4% 8-1 1565 283 18.1%
9-3 2187 756 34.6% 6-1 2079 555 26.7% 4-3 1029 182 17.7%
1-3 1757 603 34.3% 5-1 2362 611 25.9% 11-1 1704 274 16.1%
11-2 2178 729 33.5% 6-3 2125 540 25.4% 7-2 1239 169 13.6%
10-2 2236 720 32.2% 7-1 1998 507 25.4% 7-3 800 88 11.0%
5-2 2113 660 31.2% 10-3 1634 399 24.4% 8-3 743 71 9.6%
10-1 2401 716 29.8% 1-1 2265 542 23.9% 2-3 599 37 6.2%
5-3 2264 669 29.5% 3-2 1834 432 23.6% 2-2 762 40 5.2%

Citywide, there were 59,866 registered voters and 16,073 City Council ballots cast for an overall turnout of 26.6%. It should be noted that the registered voters include many “inactive” voters who may no longer live in Cambridge but who remain on the registered voter list due to requirements of the Motor-Voter Law. A more accurate value for the actual turnout may be about 34.4%.

October 19, 2009

October 19, 2009 City Council Agenda highlights

Filed under: City Council — Robert Winters @ 2:01 pm

Oct 19, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Tonight’s agenda is relatively light, but there are a few notable items. In the weeks immediately preceding a municipal election, you can usually expect to see some effects of the campaign bleeding their way into the City Council agenda. Often this takes the form of a zoning petition carefully timed to come to a final vote immediately prior to the election, though this is not the case this year. Issues at the core of a challenger’s campaign which become topics at candidate forums can also pop up within City Council orders as the incumbents try to steal some thunder. One such example is Order #15 addressing the Council/Manager balance of power that has been beaten to death at candidate forums. Here are a few items that stood out:

Communication #5. A communication was received from Kathy Podgers, transmitting information on how stress makes allergies worse and last longer.

Though clearly irrelevant to the City Council or the business of the City of Cambridge, this letter highlights the ongoing grudge by Ms. Podgers directed toward Councillor Decker growing out of a City Council meeting a few years ago at which the presence of Ms. Podgers guide dog caused a substantial allergic reaction by Councillor Decker (who was pregnant at the time and unable to take anti-allergy medication) forcing her to leave the meeting early. My only comment is that the civic environment can only be diminished when people resort to lawsuits and personal vendettas instead of acceptable compromise. Besides, if a resident/candidate wants to take issue with an incumbent city councillor, there are better, more adult ways of doing so. This letter stinks of passive aggression.

Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the City Solicitor to report back to the City Council with a legal opinion on whether or not listing public notices on the City website could fulfill the obligation of the City to publish legal notices.   Councillor Toomey

See comments entitled “Putting the Paper to Bed.”

Order #14. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council if any residents are in danger of losing their housing due to the fiscal status of affordable housing providers in Cambridge.   Vice Mayor Seidel

I periodically wonder about questions such as this. The City has now worked collaboratively on many housing projects with companies like Just-A-Start, Homeowner’s Rehab, and CASCAP. As buildings age and the economic and political landscape shifts, how secure can the City’s “housing policy” be when so much of it is in the hands of agencies that are influenced by the City but not really under the control of any City department? Perhaps it’s better this way – almost a privatization of City housing policy. However, a day may come when some of these agencies will have costs that exceed their revenues. What then? Can they sell off some of their buildings to cover the rest?

Order #15. That the City Manager is requested to submit to the City Council a request for an appropriation sufficient to enable the City Council to undertake academic or legal counsel to review the Plan E Charter.   Councillor Reeves

O-15     Oct 19, 2009
COUNCILLOR REEVES
ORDERED: That the Mayor and Cambridge City Council shall seek independent academic or legal counsel to review the Plan E Charter for the purpose of a clear and definitive explanation of the role and power of the City Council and the role and power of the City Manager before mid-December; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to submit to the City Council a request for an appropriation to the City Council Office Budget sufficient to enable the City Council to undertake this consultation on this timetable.

I’ve never seen the matter of the Council/Manager balance of power as particularly complicated or difficult to understand. The City Council passes ordinances, approves budgets, and determines overall policies (Orders) for the Manager to implement. The Manager submits an annual budget and oversees all of the operational details necessary to run the City government and implement City Council policies, including the hiring and management of all City personnel. If a majority of the City Council decides that the Manager is not properly doing his job, they can show him the door.

There is, of course, the reality that the long tenure of a Manager will tend to strengthen the hand of the Manager, but this is primarily due to the willingness of the City Council to go along with the wisdom gained by tenure. The flip side of this is that during the early years of a new Manager, the City Council will have the greater “wisdom” and the stronger hand. Such will be the case in just a few short years at the end of Robert Healy’s current contract, or sooner should he choose to retire earlier. Be careful what you wish for! Will this City Council be up to the challenge when the pendulum swings? To some, including this observer, this is a serious factor in sorting out the challengers as well as the incumbents. I’m not so sure that we now have nine who can choose a new Manager let alone manage their new Manager.

Is Reeves’ Order really asking a question or is he merely trying to shift the balance during an election in which some challengers have chosen to make the City Manager an issue? Is this just another page in the ongoing saga of last year’s Monteiro decision and this year’s Great Gates Case that have made their way into Reeves’ statements at candidate forums? Is it really necessary to obtain a budget for legal and academic consultation on this? My understanding is that Mr. Reeves has a Harvard law degree. Surely he can answer his own question as well as anyone. — Robert Winters

October 5, 2009

Oct 5, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: City Council — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 12:08 pm

Oct 5, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Tonight’s City Manager’s Agenda is dominated by many responses (16) by the City Manager and staff to Council Orders requesting information. The City Council Orders may prove interesting. They run the gamut from violence in the Congo to tree wells, flagpoles, greyhounds, and the Police Review and Advisory Board. Some that drew my attention are:

Order #10. That the City Council hold a special meeting on the status of the Police Review and Advisory Board [PRAB] and all related topics. Councillor Kelley

Perhaps Councillor Kelley could be more nonspecific, but I doubt it. If the intention of this Order is to clean house on the Unfinished Business item that has been languishing on the agenda for half a decade, then this is good housekeeping at its best.

Unfinished Business #3. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on Nov 18, 2004 for the purpose of considering proposed amendments to Chapter 2.74 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, the Police Review and Advisory Board Ordinance. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Feb 14, 2005. [Four sections of the proposed amendment were passed to be ordained as amended. Ordinance #1284. The remaining proposed amendments to chapter 2.74 remain on Unfinished Business.]

However, the vagueness of Kelley’s Order seems to open the door for a free-for-all during which we may be treated to speeches on a) the ongoing legal challenge to the Monteiro v. City of Cambridge verdict; b) the recent PRAB decision to take up the a case filed by a Boston-based advocacy group on the Great Gates Affair; and c) anything under the sun. I hope there’s at least one city councillor who will force a little more specificity on this.

Order #14. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with an explanation of the Cambridge Police Department’s policy on making available to the public information about crimes and suspects and other information not prohibited from public release. Councillor Kelley

This brings to mind a Council meeting a while back when Councillor Kelley asked that the Police Department publish a list of all the places where they regularly look for speeding violations. I’m all for public disclosure of useful information, but is it sensible for the Cambridge Police Department to announce in advance where they will or will not be looking for speeders? Regarding Councillor Kelley’s latest foray into police work, I would like it if complete descriptions of bad guys were made available after every crime, regardless of concerns about political correctness. Public safety is more important than concern for delicate sensibilities. On the other hand, I definitely don’t need to know about details in an ongoing investigation that might possibly compromise the investigation or subsequent prosecution. In some matters, you just have to trust the cops to do their job.

Order #17. Urge members of the Cambridge Legislative Delegation to support House Bill No.3643 which would reduce the prevailing speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph in urban districts on local roads. Councillor Davis

This Order is notable only because of how many times we’ve seen it. It must be a dozen or more times that I’ve read essentially the same Order over the last decade.

Order #18. Urge members of the Cambridge Legislative Delegation to support H.853 which would prohibit new buildings that cast new shadow on parks except during the first hour of sunrise or before 7:00 a.m. or during the last hour before sunset. Councillor Davis

It’s important to note that the proposed law would apply only to specific parks. There is already a law affecting the Boston Public Garden, the Boston Common, and the Lynn Common. This would expand that list to include Magazine Beach Park, the Esplanade, Christopher Columbus Park, the Rose Kennedy Greenway, the Commonwealth Avenue Mall, and Copley Square Park and would not apply to the long shadows of early morning or late afternoon. I suppose the devil is in the details and I would anticipate a few reasonable exceptions that may have to be made.

Order #20. That the City Manager is requested to provide a status report to the City Council on traffic safety measures in place at the intersection of Fresh Pond Parkway and Mount Auburn Street. Vice Mayor Seidel

They could start by painting some lanes to guide the traffic on Mt. Auburn as it passes through that intersection. However, all the traffic engineering in the world will likely have minimal effect on those drivers who continue to enter the intersection after the light has turned red. Red light cameras might help a lot. Let’s not forget that vote on March 23: Order #20. The City Council go on record supporting red light camera enforcement. Councillor Kelley and Councillor Toomey. Voting in favor: Davis, Kelley, Maher, Seidel, Toomey; voting against: Decker, Reeves, Simmons, Ward. — Robert Winters

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress